On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 10:04 PM, Peeters Simon <[email protected]> wrote:
> Since systemd and udev are one project now it might be an idea to be > able to control both daemons with one tool (systemctl) We also have journalctl, loginctl, ... systemctl is about managing services, and udev is very tightly integrated, but it's still more a service itself than at the level of controlling services. > also, since i don't like the way the arguments to udevadm work (very > unclear about what is a commando and what an option), The first word is the 'verb', everything else are options to that verb. It's not always obvious, but I also think it's not "very unclear". > i tought maybe we can redo this "interface" at the same time, to make > it integrate more with the other systemctl commandos. > > here is what i currently think could be a good way to add udev control > in systemctl: > > systemdctl > daemon-reload: also reload udev rules > > udev > trigger [type] [action] > set <key>=<value> > stop-exec > start-exec > test [action] <syspath> > builtin <command> <syspath> > settle [filename] > monitor [kernel/udev/both] > db export/cleanup > query <name/symlink/path/property/all> <path=/name=> > attribute-walk <path=/name=> > device-id-of-file <file> Most of them are not useful today, like the daemon operations: set, stop-exec, start-exec. And they should really make clear that they operate at the running daemon only and nowhere else. Calling things with generic words like 'set', which in fact does very specific and exotic things, makes not too much sense, I guess. device-id-of-file is useless today. builtin is really just a test, and nothing else, and that should also be made very clear with the command. It's in no way a general-purpose tool to call from something else than a human. query and db really belong together. ... > and maybe we can add some way to know the difference between a device > name and a sys-path ( maybe by forcing the later to begin with /sys ) > and drop the 'path=' and 'name=' in query and attribute-walk That works already in recent versions. > of course for compatibility the udevadm command has to stay around for > a while, but maybe we can fold it into systemctl with a symlink (like > we doe for poweroff, reboot,...) I don't think we are in the "for a while" department here. I don't think we could remove that anytime soon. > any sugestions/comments are welcome, i am willing to code this if it is > wanted. I'm not really convinced that this really makes things better than they are now. If we would do anything like that, we would probably throw away 2/3rd of the udevadm stuff and just get a few "systemctl device" options. Mapping 1:1, the same stuff udev already pretty sufficiently does, to systemctl does not really seem to justify the duplication and effort. Kay _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
